Jump to content

Sons' sorrow


Recommended Posts

Very interesting meeting tonight I thought

New guy from brabco much more open than Iain Wilson

Business plan for new ground depends on them selling rest of new site for housing...they reckon though that west dunbartonshire council will refuse application, but seem confident it will be approved on appeal

Whole case seems much better now I thought...costings more advanced and scheme actually seems viable

I thought the fans tone was also changing and seems more positive towards the proposals

General consensus also seems to be we need to spend around £250k to fix the current ground with the wall below the castle being a major problem. Didn't appear to be a plan where this money would come from

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No guarantee they would appeal, as its expected to cost tens of thousands of pounds to do so. I couldn't believe historic Scotland, are holding us to ransom over a wall surrounding the castle , probably 50 feet from our main door. Ridiculous. Roddy especially came across very well, chris too, but I didn't like his anonymity of his fellow investors. That concerned me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I'm sceptical.

 

I don't really understand how we can have gone from the utter shit show we received before to all of a sudden something that works and is viable.

 

Were any further details given about 'the wall' and what powers Historic Scotland actually have to force us into building or paying for something? What are all the repairs that are required at the current ground and were these figures broken down?

 

I've also heard we will now apparently own the new stadium as long as we don't receive the a large tax bill? Why has this all of a sudden changed from the peppercorn rent patter?

 

I didn't make the meeting so all of the above may have been answered. I'm still hugely sceptical and don't trust these c***s one single bit, regardless of what they say.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can probably answer a few of your questions BBPF.

How did we get from the very sketchy information delivered by Ian Wilson to what we've now had delivered by Roddy the planning guy and Chris Stainton? A big part of that is the trust board pushing Brabco for evidence. We've had several meetings with Brabco and we've consistently pushed for a proper business model, proper costings and for that to be made available to us for scrutiny. There has been a significant change in attitude from Brabco, as well as a change in personnel, and what they're doing now is what they should have been doing for the past 18 months to 2 years. We can criticise that it's taken them so long to get to this stage but we have to acknowledge the positive change that's happened. For whatever reason (and we may personally think of a few of them), Brabco have really stepped up the way they're approaching the development and thats lead to the trust board being in a better position to scrutinise and for fans to get more detailed information at events like last night.

Doesnt mean we shouldn't question their figures or simply accept what their report tells us. The trust board are doing so in a robust fashion. What it does mean is that we're now getting the full story, access to the information we need to scrutinise and ask those questions and that's a massive step forward. Its always been Brabco's case to make in favour of moving and the big change is that they're now trying to make that case in a dilligent and professional way. They've engaged some decent professional people to produce their work and we have to accept that they're now putting in a lot of very good effort into buiding their case. You can never remove risk completely from something like this - Brabco hold all of the risk until the deal is done whilst the club assume all of the risk if Brabco make their profit, hand us the keys and tell us to get on with running things. What you can do is proper, dilligent business modeling, proper costing and put together enough evidence that you minimise those risks and try to tip the balance in favour of success.

Current ground? There are 4 general areas that need to be addressed. The rock wall, the floodlights, the dip in the pitch and general repairs to the stand. They've engaged an engingeering firm to give them a professional opinion on costs. With something like the wall around the rock, it's potentially a health and safety issue. Its not so much the powers that Visit Scotland have to force the club to repair it - it's a health and safety issue. We've got a safety certificate for the site but clearly any deterioration in the wall would be a consideration in the future. The floodlights aren't Championship spec. We've been given dispensation to continue without upgrading them due to the club's intention to move. If we stay put then that dispensation ends and we will need to upgrade them. The dip in the pitch at the away end needs to be addressed. The actua structure of the stand needs to be repaired and maintained. The engineers have provided a range of figures based on best and worst case scenarios. There's culpability here for Brabco and the DFC board and Stainton did admit that perhaps they didnt hold the club board to account as strongly as they should have. Ultimately if we do stay at the current ground then we need to find the money to do those repairs/upgrades. It's no longer a case of simply staying put as we don't need to move. We need to accept that there are significant challenges in staying. And if planning permission is refused then we're staying: if we don't get planning permission then we'll be forced to deal with the work needed at the current site.

Stadium ownership? Simply put it's a bit of a minefield. Brabco think that theres a chance that it could land the club with a tax bill. The club could defer it for a number of years but eventually it would need to find the money to pay HMRC. The trust is doing it's own investigation into that. Tax law is a hugely complex area, as our neighbours up the road will testify to, and if there's a risk that the club will be hit with a significant bill then we need to know about it. I've got my own views on the significance of stadium ownership but right now the important thing is that we get robust legal and tax advice.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

I can probably answer a few of your questions BBPF.

[....]

Ultimately if we do stay at the current ground then we need to find the money to do those repairs/upgrades. It's no longer a case of simply staying put as we don't need to move. We need to accept that there are significant challenges in staying. And if planning permission is refused then we're staying: if we don't get planning permission then we'll be forced to deal with the work needed at the current site.

[...]

Stadium ownership? Simply put it's a bit of a minefield. Brabco think that theres a chance that it could land the club with a tax bill. The club could defer it for a number of years but eventually it would need to find the money to pay HMRC. The trust is doing it's own investigation into that. Tax law is a hugely complex area, as our neighbours up the road will testify to, and if there's a risk that the club will be hit with a significant bill then we need to know about it. I've got my own views on the significance of stadium ownership but right now the important thing is that we get robust legal and tax advice.

 

 

This (and the rest of your post) is all spot on, BSF.  There are going to be big changes moving forward, whichever way things go on the new stadium. And the tax and legal issues need to be handled clearly and rigorously. We're on the case.

Thanks vm to everyone who came last night - sixty of us on a miserably wet midweek evening! Please do keep the questions and comments coming.

There will be more on the trust site shortly, and we're fixing another Trust board meeting this month to pursue all the key issues. Absolutely everything has to be measured against what will deliver the most sustainable future for the club. We as supporters should not and will not simply be passengers in this vehicle, we need to be involved in making sure it steers in the right direction. By the end of the year we will have clarity on which way things are heading re. the stadium - and then we are going to have to get stuck in to make it work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, optimistic said:

Roddy especially came across very well, chris too, but I didn't like his anonymity of his fellow investors. That concerned me

You'll note that I made it quite clear that the position of the trust is, and will remain, that owners of football clubs should be publicly known - and pressed the question of who takes decisions for Brabco. We have had much more transparency from Chris, and everything that he's said to us in recent weeks (and indeed months) has checked out. What was not mentioned last night is that the 'offshore vehicle' that Brabco has used is in the process of being wound up. That was also something we pushed hard for, and to which we've had a positive response.  The overall situation is not entirely as we would want, but the direction of travel has been far better of late, and we will continue to make sure that our interests and those of the club (which are ultimately the same) are pressed solidly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main thing I picked up on last night was that the entire thing is pretty much dependent on getting 500k per section of land. As a couple of P&Bers picked up on at the time this seems to only give a potential return (excluding the current site) of £14m to fund a 13.5m development. 500k divided by 4 Brabcoers (iirc) isn't a massive profit for such a long term venture.

Roddy also mentioned that, that figure is probably at the top end of the market, and that with Brexit etc housebuilders will look to squeeze that down. If they end up buying it at, say, 300, where does that leave us? The new stadium plans have always looked mighty impressive, but surely they would have to be cut down to make up for this?

That's before we get to the fact that he doesn't think WDC would approve plans to build houses on the site at the moment seemingly. Which makes the whole situation a bit messy.

Overall I thought it was far, far better than last time. Stainton seemed really nervous, but he came across as a bit more transparent (and a bit more understanding to our position) than Wilson, which was a plus.

I'm a wee bit more comfortable than I was this time last year about the whole thing, but it's still a massive risk and until I feel like the club is 100% safe I can't see me writing to the Council in support...as was mentioned last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was easily the most candid public meeting which has been held, and Chris Stainton's different tone from the previous one of Ian Wilson and Calum Hosie was welcome.

There are many challenges across the spectrum, that much is clear.  I do honestly feel however, that there will likely never be a better time should the new development proceed for DFC to become  a genuine community club.  Having said that, there are still considerable hurdles to be overcome, and viewed dispassionately the whole proposal still looks akin to getting eight results up on a fixed odds coupon.

In their heart of hearts Brabco must now regret their original involvement, but credit them for attempting to do the right thing.  From private soundings I  get the feeling that the Trust is no longer viewed as 'the enemy', and indeed Brabco is now much more aware of what exactly has been happening down Castle Road.

I still find it extraordinary that investors would ever have adopted such a laissez faire approach to things, but I'm pretty sure the scales have now fallen from their eyes regarding the at times opaque decision-making at the club.  I expect that as the Planning Application proceeds that Chris Stainton will now have much more of an interest in club matters, although his geography and other business commitments may limit the extent of it. 

The days of a Captain Mainwaring running DFC need to cease, and pronto. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with others in that last night was much more along the lines of what we were looking for. They presented the best figures we could make and also advised us we might not make us much as projected, but they didn't say what happens to the development in that situation - I think we all know it means a scaled down version of what is proposed though we need that clarified.

It felt like the last roll of the dice from Brabco and Roddy, telling fans that the proposal would be rejected and fan support might help was probably a good card for them to play.  I must say I don't like the sound of the alternative to moving - staying here and having to find possibly upwards of £100K and having "who knows" running the club. Having said that, I'd rather we struggled a bit and cut our cloth than went ahead with this project without proper funding.  Most of the answers they provided to the actual build itself satisfied me last night but it really is all down to the figure they get for the packets of land. If what they say is true and house builders are interested then perhaps that will push the price to the max we can get, but this takes a leap of faith from the fans and I understand why that makes some uneasy.

I thought Chris was honest and open as much as he could be, I don't think he told any lies last night either. He admitted Brabco probably could have been more hands on and that would've helped their reputation with fans. He did get a bit agitated when he was pressed on the profit margin for Brabco but I don't think he's trying to hide anything from us. As I said to another last night, I genuinely now don't believe that these guys are the devil and are out to f**k over the club, but I do think the naivety in which they approach things could end up hurting us. He said "I believe with every bone in my body that this plan will deliver exactly what everyone needs". That's fine, but you need to plan for everything going tits up - I'm not sure we've got a good enough disaster plan in place. What was interesting for me is that the club can't apply for funding from government or sports bodies because of the type of company it is, but if it were CIC (Community Interest Company - as the Trust are aiming to become) then we could apply for funding.  Now, we might not get funding but at least there is an element of planning there to potentially cover any holes in funding should they arise. I know the Trust are already on it, but making the Trust a CIC and encouraging the club to become the same could paint a real picture of change at the club - something I think all fans are looking for.

I won't be writing to the council to declare my outright support and I think we should remain neutral until things become clearer again, but obviously some felt last night that they wanted to publicly support it, that's fine with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not owning the new ground is a big concern as far as I am concerned. If the club has an asset like that it always gives the potential for borrowing in the future should that become necessary. If we are left with no heritable assets we are ruling out any borrowing as we would have no assets to secure against it. There is also the concern that the landlords attitude could change or indeed the landlord could change in the future. Going from a position of having assets with a paper value of 1.5m to having none is a huge leap imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Not owning the new ground is a big concern as far as I am concerned. If the club has an asset like that it always gives the potential for borrowing in the future should that become necessary. If we are left with no heritable assets we are ruling out any borrowing as we would have no assets to secure against it. There is also the concern that the landlords attitude could change or indeed the landlord could change in the future. Going from a position of having assets with a paper value of 1.5m to having none is a huge leap imo

it seemed from last night, that a decision has still be made on this, but will depend on which is the most financially advantageous to the club. There is a concern that if the club own the ground, they would then be liable for tax on it, so the £1 peppercorn rent is a work around

it was also interesting to hear that some of the existing / former directors had also provided soft loans to keep the club solvent - that is worrying, and perhaps indicates one of the reasons they are keen to explore new revenue raising ideas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Not owning the new ground is a big concern as far as I am concerned. If the club has an asset like that it always gives the potential for borrowing in the future should that become necessary. If we are left with no heritable assets we are ruling out any borrowing as we would have no assets to secure against it. There is also the concern that the landlords attitude could change or indeed the landlord could change in the future. Going from a position of having assets with a paper value of 1.5m to having none is a huge leap imo

Agree totally with that. Brabco themselves have said the only reason for the club not owning the ground would be tax though, so if we can quash any fears over that we can look to have them confirm that the club will own the stadium. He said he thought the lease would be 99 years or something and we'd all be dead by then, which isn't really the way I'm thinking about the future of the club tbh. I hope my family continue to support Dumbarton in 99 years time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree totally with that. Brabco themselves have said the only reason for the club not owning the ground would be tax though, so if we can quash any fears over that we can look to have them confirm that the club will own the stadium. He said he thought the lease would be 99 years or something and we'd all be dead by then, which isn't really the way I'm thinking about the future of the club tbh. I hope my family continue to support Dumbarton in 99 years time.

Well he didn't really say that the only reason the club wouldn't own the ground would be tax. He sort of fudged it with three alternatives. He also didn't answer the other part of the question which was what would happen to the profit from the sale of the rock? Later on however Roddy let slip that Brabco would expect to top up any profit from the new development with the proceeds from the ultimate sale of the rock. Money which of course belongs to Dumbarton Football Club Limited and not the Brabco investors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night was interesting, as others have said the plans seemed a lot better thought through and it seems the costing plans etc seem more secure and have been verified by the trust and external company, Which is good.

I thought Chris spoke well seemed a little nervous but answered most questions as best he could.

What interested me is some of the costs to build/fix things. over 100,000 for the boundary wall. 4,000,000 for the round about.  I also don't understand how the could can, as it seems come along and go we want your land for a park and walk way, oh and you'll pay some of the bill for that.

Building houses/ selling the land for houses is the mechanism for this to go through, baring planning but i really do wonder the reaction of new home owners having to drive past the stadium, even though its only "20 times a year" no one seems to have answered the question of how are we a bad neighbour where we are now but when we move this will suddenly disapear?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:


Well he didn't really say that the only reason the club wouldn't own the ground would be tax. He sort of fudged it with three alternatives. He also didn't answer the other part of the question which was what would happen to the profit from the sale of the rock? Later on however Roddy let slip that Brabco would expect to top up any profit from the new development with the proceeds from the ultimate sale of the rock. Money which of course belongs to Dumbarton Football Club Limited and not the Brabco investors

He did actually say that, I questioned whether the profits from the facilities at the new stadium would go to the club even if we were renting the ground and he said "Yes. And remember the only reason you would be renting is to avoid a big tax bill".

As for your last point, Brabco own Dumbarton Football Club Limited, they could practically do what they like with the ground and profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brabco return is from the sale of the current site; 10 acres at £500k each. The new ground has to be funded from whatever the new housing site sells for. Problem then is we need the council to approve a community sports hub (with housing) that could end up not fully funded and having to be cut back. Would the council approve the full project if financially we couldn't build the 2 astro pitches, or the full stadium?

Definites are;

Current ground needs expensive repairs done in the next few years.
Current site is worth around £5m.
Protection offered by the Golden shares is questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brabco return is from the sale of the current site; 10 acres at £500k each. The new ground has to be funded from whatever the new housing site sells for. Problem then is we need the council to approve a community sports hub (with housing) that could end up not fully funded and having to be cut back. Would the council approve the full project if financially we couldn't build the 2 astro pitches, or the full stadium?

Definites are;

Current ground needs expensive repairs done in the next few years.
Current site is worth around £5m.
Protection offered by the Golden shares is questionable.




Agree with others in that last night was much more along the lines of what we were looking for. They presented the best figures we could make and also advised us we might not make us much as projected, but they didn't say what happens to the development in that situation - I think we all know it means a scaled down version of what is proposed though we need that clarified.
It felt like the last roll of the dice from Brabco and Roddy, telling fans that the proposal would be rejected and fan support might help was probably a good card for them to play.  I must say I don't like the sound of the alternative to moving - staying here and having to find possibly upwards of £100K and having "who knows" running the club. Having said that, I'd rather we struggled a bit and cut our cloth than went ahead with this project without proper funding.  Most of the answers they provided to the actual build itself satisfied me last night but it really is all down to the figure they get for the packets of land. If what they say is true and house builders are interested then perhaps that will push the price to the max we can get, but this takes a leap of faith from the fans and I understand why that makes some uneasy.
I thought Chris was honest and open as much as he could be, I don't think he told any lies last night either. He admitted Brabco probably could have been more hands on and that would've helped their reputation with fans. He did get a bit agitated when he was pressed on the profit margin for Brabco but I don't think he's trying to hide anything from us. As I said to another last night, I genuinely now don't believe that these guys are the devil and are out to f**k over the club, but I do think the naivety in which they approach things could end up hurting us. He said "I believe with every bone in my body that this plan will deliver exactly what everyone needs". That's fine, but you need to plan for everything going tits up - I'm not sure we've got a good enough disaster plan in place. What was interesting for me is that the club can't apply for funding from government or sports bodies because of the type of company it is, but if it were CIC (Community Interest Company - as the Trust are aiming to become) then we could apply for funding.  Now, we might not get funding but at least there is an element of planning there to potentially cover any holes in funding should they arise. I know the Trust are already on it, but making the Trust a CIC and encouraging the club to become the same could paint a real picture of change at the club - something I think all fans are looking for.
I won't be writing to the council to declare my outright support and I think we should remain neutral until things become clearer again, but obviously some felt last night that they wanted to publicly support it, that's fine with me.




Not owning the new ground is a big concern as far as I am concerned. If the club has an asset like that it always gives the potential for borrowing in the future should that become necessary. If we are left with no heritable assets we are ruling out any borrowing as we would have no assets to secure against it. There is also the concern that the landlords attitude could change or indeed the landlord could change in the future. Going from a position of having assets with a paper value of 1.5m to having none is a huge leap imo

When was the figure of £5M quoted for the current site ? My understanding is that the land value has plummeted, and the intended future use would be a car/coach park for visitors to the Rock.
Never mind the travelling community....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...